Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel) case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Esther Scott, Philip Heymann. The Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel) (referred as “Detainees Torture” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Strategy & Execution. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Leadership, Operations management, Regulation, Security & privacy, Social responsibility.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel) ” provides a comprehensive framework to analyse all issues at hand and reach a unambiguous negotiated agreement. At Oak Spring University, we provide comprehensive negotiation strategies that have proven their worth both in the academic sphere and corporate world.
What’s my BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – my walkaway option if the deal fails?
What are my most important interests, in ranked order?
What is the other side’s BATNA, and what are his interests?
After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush launched a military offensive in Afghanistan, which led to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives thought to be behind the attacks. Top US officials debated how to extract crucial information from them about Al Qaeda's future plans. The Central Intelligence Agency wanted to apply aggressive interrogation methods, which it argued were necessary to convince detainees to reveal what they knew. But CIA officials worried such techniques might violate both international treaties banning torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of prisoners of war and detainees and, more consequentially, the domestic laws that enforced them. To protect its agents, the CIA sought a clear statement from the Bush Administration on how far agents could go in efforts to force detainees to talk. These cases tell the story of OLC's legal findings and their consequences. Part A (1853.0)describes a series of OLC memoranda on the treatment of detainees in the "war on terror," culminating in an August 2002 opinion that became known as the "torture memo," which narrowly interpreted the legal meaning of torture but took a broad view of presidential wartime powers under the Constitution. Part A ends as Assistant Attorney General and OLC head Jay Bybee must decide whether to sign the opinion. Part B (1854.0) tracks the results of the torture memo, tracing the use of interrogation techniques it sanctioned from CIA detention centers overseas to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the view of some, these harsher techniques eventually "migrated" to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where abusive treatment of detainees became an international embarrassment for the US. HKS Case Number 1854.1
By interests, we do not mean the preconceived demands or positions that you or the other party may have, but rather the underlying needs, aims, fears, and concerns that shape what you want. Negotiation is more than getting what you want. It is not winning at all cost. Number of times Win-Win is better option that outright winning or getting what you want.
Options are the solutions you generate that could meet your and your counterpart’s interests . Often people come to negotiations with very fixed ideas and things they want to achieve. This strategy leaves unexplored options which might be even better than the one that one party wanted to achieve. So always try to provide as many options as possible during the negotiation process. The best outcome should be out of many options rather than few options.
When soft bargainers meet hard bargainers there is always the danger of soft bargainers ceding more than what is necessary. To avoid this scenario you should always focus on legitimate standards or expectations. Standards are often external and objective measures to assess the fairness such as rules and regulations, financial values & resources , market prices etc. If the negotiated agreement is going beyond the industry norms or established standards of fairness then it is prudent to get out of the negotiation.
Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel)” has three to four plausible scenarios. The negotiating protagonist needs to have clear idea of – what will happen if the negotiations fail. To put it in the negotiating literature – BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. If the negotiated agreement is not better than BATNA then there is no point in accepting the negotiated solution.
One of the biggest problems in implementing the negotiated agreements in corporate world is – the ambiguity in the negotiated agreement. Sometimes the negotiated agreements are not realistic or various parties interpret the outcomes based on their understanding of the situation. It is critical to do negotiations as water tight as possible so that there is less scope for ambiguity.
Many negotiators make the mistake of focusing only on the substance of the negotiation (interests, options, standards, and so on). How you communicate about that substance, however, can make all the difference. The language you use and the way that you build understanding, jointly solve problems, and together determine the process of the negotiation with your counterpart make your negotiation more efficient, yield clear agreements that each party understands, and help you build better relationships.
Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “Esther Scott, Philip Heymann”, the protagonist may want to establish a new connection or repair a damaged one; in any case, you want to build a strong working relationship built on mutual respect, well-established trust, and a side-by-side problem- solving approach.
According to
Harvard Business Review
, there are three types of negotiators – Hard Bargainers, Soft Bargainers, and Principled Bargainers.
Hard Bargainers – These people see negotiations as an activity that they need to win. They are less focused less on the real objectives of the negotiations but more on winning. In the “Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel) ”, do you think a hard bargaining strategy will deliver desired results? Hard bargainers are easy to negotiate with as they often have a very
predictable strategy
Soft Bargainers – These people are focused on relationship rather than hard outcomes of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean they are pushovers. These negotiators often scribe to long term relationship rather than immediate bargain.
Principled Bargainers – As explained in the seven elemental tools of negotiations above, these negotiators are more concern about the standards and norms of fairness. They often have inclusive approach to negotiations and like to work on numerous solutions that can improve the BATNA of both parties.
Open lines of communication between parties in the case study “Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel)” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Esther Scott, Philip Heymann (2018), "Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel) Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.
Feel free to connect with us if you need business research.
You can download Excel Template of Case Study Solution & Analysis of Defining Torture in the War on Terror (Sequel)
Technology , Semiconductors
Technology , Computer Services
Utilities , Natural Gas Utilities
Capital Goods , Construction - Raw Materials
Technology , Computer Services
Services , Retail (Department & Discount)
Basic Materials , Fabricated Plastic & Rubber
Consumer Cyclical , Auto & Truck Parts
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
Services , Personal Services
Consumer Cyclical , Recreational Products
